SMT. KILASHO DEVI BURMAN AND OTHERS versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 08-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.~ 
SMT. KILASHO DEVI BURMAN AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA 
FEBRUARY 8, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) 
B 
Income Ta.'C Act, 1961: Section 143(3). 
Income Tax-HUF-Assessment of-Signed assessment order or f onn 
for relevant assessment yew~Absence of-Held : there was no valid assess-
C 
ment. 
Section 256 (1) 
Income Tax-Referenc~Jwisdiction of High Cowt-Scope of-Held: 
High Cowt could not go behind facts found by T1ibunal. 
D 
Words and Phrases : 
"Pe1verse Conclusion''-Meaning of in the context of Section 256( 1) of 
the Income Tax Act, 1961. 
The appellant - assessee had submitted a return for the relevant 
assessment year as the karta of his H.U.F. The assessment order on the 
record of the Revenue bore no signature. There was no signed copy of the 
assessment form. There was a demand notice with some initial or signature 
E 
on it. On the record there was an acknowledgement slip signed by some 
person. There was no material to show that the demand raised in the F 
demand notice had been paid by the appellant-assessee. 
The Income Tax Officer took proceedings under Section 147 (a) of 
the Income Tax Act, 1961 and concluded that the appellant's H.U.F. had 
escaped assessment. The appellant filed 'nil' returns under protest. The G 
I.T.O. rejected the appellant's contention and made assessment on the 
H.U.F. Whereupon the appellants appealed to the Income Tax Appellate 
Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Revenue sought reference 
to the Tribunal and it made a reference to the High Court which answered 
it in favour of the Revenue on the ground that the conclusion arrived at 
by the Tribunal was perverse. Aggrieved by the High Court's Judgment the H 
301 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A appellant had preferred this appeal. 
B 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that neither the statutory 
notices nor the demand notice nor the assessment order was received by 
him; and that no person had any authority to receive any notice on his 
behalf. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court, in a reference under the taxation 
statutes exercises advisory jurisdiction in regard to questions of law. It is 
C 
only when it has before it a question that asks whether the Tribunal has, 
upon the evidence on record before it, come to a co,nclusion which is 
perverse that it may go into facts for this is a question of law. A conclusion 
is perverse only if it is such that no person, duly instructed, could, upon 
the record before him, have reasonably come to it. [305-G-H; 306-A] 
D 
E 
1.2. The High Court, in reference proceedings, cannot go behind the 
facts found. It cannot look at evidence that was not before Tribunal when 
it reached the impugned findings to hold that these findings are perverse. 
[306-D; E] 
2. The statement of"admitted" facts was placed by the Revenue before 
the Tribunal as an annexure to its reference application. That the Statement 
of Case does not state that any person had received earlier notices o.n behalf 
of the assessee shows that the Tribunal had not so found; that there is no 
mention of this at all suggests that the Revenue did not place this argument 
and the supporting material before the Tribunal. The High Court could 
F 
have required the Tribunal to ascertain whether any person had received 
earlier notices on behalf of the assessee and prepare a Supplemental State-
ment of Case, but the High Court could not, upon these "admitted" facts, 
have reached the conclusion that the Tribunal's findings of fact were per-
verse. The High Court did not give due importance to the fact that upon the 
G record produced by the Revenue before the Tribunal there was no signed 
assessment order nor a signed assessment form. [306-F-G; 307-B] 
Kalyanlaunar Ray v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 191 1.T.R. 634, 
relied on. 
H 
Ellis Reid v. C.J. T., 5 I.T.C. 100, cited. 
--
• 
K.D. BURMANv. C.l.T. [BHARUCHA,J.] 
303 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2242-
A 
2246 of 1978. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.77 of th~ Calcutta High 
Court in LT. Reference No. 90 of 1968. 
K.B. Rohtagi, Anup Sharma and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the appel-
B 
lants. 
R.R. Mishra, R. Satish and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. This is an appeal by special leave. The order that is 
impugned was passed by the High Court at Calcutta in an income-tax 
reference. The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.